But despite the good news for Atlanta’s charter schools, the fact remains that a major school district has shown how hostile it can be toward the charters it sponsors. Last year, Atlanta schools Superintendent Erroll Davis took $3 million from the revenues of eleven city charter schools so that charters could share the burden of an aging pension obligation that has grown to $550 million.

Should we be surprised? Probably not. Charters have taken an increasing share of the public school market in Atlanta (charter enrollment grew 29 percent between 2011 and 2012, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools), whereas school-district enrollment has been essentially flat at around 49,000 students during that time. Davis failed to convince the Supreme Court of his argument, but his fight tells us that districts that authorize charter schools sometimes have incentives to acquire revenues bound for charter schools or turn charters away altogether.

The existence of ICBs and other authorizers, however, doesn’t guarantee checks and balances. Georgia voters last year empowered the Georgia Charter Schools Commission to sponsor charters statewide, but Commission-authorized charter schools get less money per pupil than most district-authorized charter schools—especially those in Atlanta. So charter applicants that want to be funded at an appropriate level have a financial incentive to turn to Erroll Davis and the school district.

So Atlanta has given us a cautionary tale: Charter applicants need to be able to turn to another, publicly accountable authorizer if a school district or other sponsor treats them unfairly or with hostility, and said alternative authorizer must enjoy the same rights and funding that school districts receive. Sounds like common sense, but as with so much in charter policy, it’s a struggle (oftentimes legal) to act with a level head.